Former Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioner Rowena Guanzon yesterday afternoon formally filed her motion for reconsideration asking the Office of the Ombudsman to set aside its December 7, 2023 resolution finding probable cause in the complaint filed against her for alleged premature disclosure of confidential information.
Dylan Santos, who is Guanzon’s lawyer, told reporters that his client also asked the Ombudsman that the review of her case be transferred to another lawyer.
Guanzon did not personally appear to file her appeal as her counsel said she is feeling under the weather and nursing a cold.
“What she is praying for is fairness. To be assured that we are all treated the same. If you were the one who issued the resolution, how do you review your own work?” Santos pointed out.
The assailed Ombudsman ruling recommended the filing of two counts of charges against Guanzon for violation of Section 3 (k) of RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which penalizes “divulging valuable information of a confidential character… to unauthorized persons or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.”
The case stemmed from a complaint filed in 2022 by lawyer Ferdinand Topacio and Diego Magpantay of the Citizens Crime Watch.
In a television interview, Guanzon said she has not been officially served a copy of the Ombudsman resolution for her indictment.
“I have not yet received a copy of that resolution. But I am filing a motion for reconsideration since I have confidence in the Ombudsman’s procedures in reviewing the resolution. I only requested that the review be assigned to another lawyer, not the one who signed the ruling,” she said.
“Naniniwala naman ako sa fairness ng Office of the Ombudsman, dati naman akong nagle-lecture dyan sa kanilang MCLE (mandatory continuing legal education). Magagaling po ang mga abogado dyan (I believe in the fairness of the Ombudsman. I used to give lectures there for the MCLE. Their lawyers are good). (But) I am hoping that a new investigator will give the case a fresh look on review,” she added.
Guanzon pointed out that the Ombudsman has earlier thrown out two other complaints against her for lack of basis. These involved alleged unlawful delivery of papers or copies or revelation of a secret known to her by reasons of her office punishable under Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code; and wrongful disclosure or misuse of confidential information covered by Section 7 (c) of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
“Complainant failed to present proof that respondent was motivated by any private interest or that she gave any private party unwarranted benefits which prompted the disclosure of the information,” the Ombudsman declared in the cited decisions.
In addition, it found “no proof that respondent intended to prejudice the public interest with such disclosure.”
“In the present case, the informations (sic) revealed by respondent are not secret and there is no evidence that said premature disclosure of information caused damage to public interest,” the Ombudsman added.
In the case recently resolved by the Ombudsman, Guanzon defended her actions saying the statements she gave in the questioned interviews aired on GMA News and Rappler Talk were part of her duties as a Comelec commissioner.
“Nagpa-interview ako because it’s my duty, katungkulan ko po na i-defend ang independence and integrity ng Commission on Elections at para malaman ng taong bayan na may politikong nagi-interfere at nakikialam, at sini-sway ang decision ng commissioners (I agreed to be interview because it was my duty to defend the independence and integrity of the Commission on Elections, and so that the public would know that there was a politician who was interfering and trying to sway the decision of the commissioners),” she pointed out.
She insisted that none of her statements were of confidential nature as at the time, there was no ongoing deliberation in her division and no vote has been taken on any pending issue.
“Wala pa naman po kaming botohan noon. Ano sinasabi nila na bawal daw mag-disclose ng confidential information, yung boto ko raw. Paano? Wala pa po kaming botohan noon. Di kasi kami makaboto dahil wala pa ngang ponencia. Di pa kami makapag-deliberation noon (There was no voting happening at the time of the interview. They’re saying it was prohibited to disclose confidential information, referring to my vote. How did that happen? We have not voted at the time. We cannot vote yet because there was no ponencia yet, we have not deliberated at the time),” she explained.
Guanzon pointed out that as chairperson of the Comelec division where the petition to disqualify then presidential candidate Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was pending, she was the one who can call for the start of deliberations but only after the ponencia or the draft ruling from the designated ponente has been submitted before it.
“Again, wala pa pong botohan at wala pa pong deliberation. Wala akong nilabag na batas dyan. What was I supposed to have leaked, wala naman silang kopya ng separate opinion ko (Again, there was no voting and deliberation yet at the time [of the interview]. I did not violate any law. What was I supposed to have leaked? They do not even have a copy of my separate opinion),” she added.
